Well, your analysis of Christianity is wrong. The central basis of Christianity as pointed out by St. Athanasius is theosis, which means deification, 'God became man so that man might become god.' Christianity has pagan roots in the obvious Neoplatonic influences on the early Church fathers, and the Aristotlian influences on Medieval scholasticism. The burning of heretics is the burning of the weak, in that a proper Christian recognizes irrefutably his obligation to fulfill his duty towards theosis, which means accepting the teleological nature of himself or herself and actualizing that to the greatest degree possible. Christ's death is a sacrifice meant to embody the divinization of mankind, not a story of meek surrender in order to encourage the weak. The mistake you're making is a common one made by most modern opponents of Christianity, which is to be completely unaware of its historical and philosophical dimensions. Protestantism is not Christianity, it's a heresy. Egalitarianism, refusal of diversity and tradition, anti-heirarchical revolutions, these are all Protestantism. Also, traditional Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually experiencing a renaissance of sorts in intellectual circles today. It isn't widely visible in the mainstream media, but that's because the left has an iron-grip on the media and mainstream academia, and has historically seen the Catholic Church (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Church of the past, but most especially the Catholic Church as in the eternal philosophy of Catholicism) as its greatest opponent.

I've met people like you before. Your concerns are understandable, because I'm against modernity too. But people such as yourself always seemed shocked when they are introduced to the actual philosophical material of the early Church fathers, such as St. Athanasius, the Philokalia, Psuedo-Dionysius, and the Cappodocian fathers, as if this was some sort of Christianity they never knew existed.

Well, you clearly have a wider theological knowledge than me, so I'm going to resist the temptation to enter an argument about my interpretation of Christianity. What I will say however, is that I am not alone in my interpretation and, as you yourself recognise, it is shared by many. Hence, I doubt very much that it is entirely invalid. Protestantism may be a heresy to you, but to the vast majority of people (i.e. everyone who is not a traditional Catholic or Orthodox Christian) it is a perfectly valid form/interpretation of Xianity. Of course, very few of this dauntingly broad category are intelligent or informed enough for their opinion to count on this matter; but enough are. For instance, my own interpretation of Xianity is, predictably, one derived from Nietzsche, Heidegger, de Benoist, Evola etc. And as long as there is even a remote possibility that the interpretations that these thinkers propose for Xianity could arise, take form, and become influential institutions of thought and culture, I cannot accept Xianity as a viable ally. I think we can agree that protestantism could never have developed from paganism.

Anyway, to bring the discussion back on course, I'd like to ask if you yourself, as a traditional Catholic, would welcome an alliance with followers of heathen philosophy? What is your personal reaction to Conservationist's suggestion?

And, as I remember it, Nietzsche had some especially pointed criticism for Luther and the Reformation, specifically. It basically boiled down to the fact that it made Christianity even more egalitarian. Nietzsche also said it was better to be a Borgia than a Parsifal. I suppose this all implies that even Nietzsche had a certain respect for the hierarchical nature of the Catholic church.

I hate to talk about stuff I don't understand, but I want to bring information I got from reading other people who studied christianity.

One thing is they say christianity was opposed to paganism, or at least to what it had become.

The other thing is that from what I've read, in orthodox christianity, christianity is no laughing matter, no BS: The disciplines for monks on orthodox christianity are not for the feeble minded, it is some tough shit.

Again, I know nothing about this, but this has come to me from reading others that had some knowldege on the topic.

I love the Roman Idea and not what had made this wonderful empire fall. If we can rely on history to tell us, many of the races, tribes, etc rejected the Roman way, but thought better when they seen what they can offer in terms of food, structure, art and what not. The trick to it all is, how you can incorporate this into your culture and still have the identity.

It has been told the Romans, of the people they respected, one of the peoples was the Basque. Strong, and not willing to compromise their ways, the still found a way to have their identity. The Basques allowed the Roman to pass in the Pyrenees, as long as the Romans gave them their freedom.

It is redundant, but the Traditional forms of Christianity and Islam, even Judaism prior to its degradation integrated much of the "pagan" wisdom. We see that the scholars of the time regarded the Greco-Roman philosophers are virtuous pagans in the case of the Christians, wise men of the Gentiles, or for Muslims, as sages on the verge of sainthood if on they were monotheists. Unfortunately, those stoic men and women of virtue coupled with reason are gone. Their warlike counterparts owing their allegiance to the transcendent reality have faded to nil and are at the whim of exoteric charlatans.

As I said, statistical evidence is difficult because the liberal-dominated mainstream media refuses to acknowledge such a movement for obvious reasons. However, there is evidence in the recent uprising of reactionary Christian blogs hosted by college professors, of which Bruce Charlton's Miscellany and Throne and Altar are two out of a handful of examples.

I see you have a link to Plotinus' Enneads in your signature. One of the most excellent philosophical works I have ever read.

So whatís the deal here? Why have Christians failed so miserably across the board in their sacred duty to uphold the sanctity of matrimony and prevent dissolution?

Whatís happening is that Christianity has become an industry of sorts, and it caters to its consumers, who are overwhelmingly female. As wealth has transferred to women, who are the biggest discretionary spenders in the US by a wide margin, churches and preachers have turned to supplication to earn their daily bread.

...

Clearly, Molly has decided itís time to find a proper husband, who she intended to deceive regarding her chastity. Why church? Because she knows that church is where men receive training regarding how to behave as husbands. Additionally, she knows that churches no longer treat marriage as a contract between those who enter into it and God, but rather a contract between the parties themselves, with God (whose advocate is the preacher) as the judge. And, as in family law, women will push the contract in their favor at every opportunity, resulting in ever more excuses for breaking it if she so chooses. As Dalrock has demonstrated, many Christian leaders will oblige her.

...

If true Christianity is to survive, it may need to reintroduce some of the characteristics of the early church, including segregation by gender. Male-only services may be of some value, as would removal of women from the altar. Supplication for profit must be eschewed, too. Itís a tall order, and probably more than Western Christians are willing to take on. The future of Christianity in the Western world looks tenuous at best.

Nietzsche railed against the feminine in politics and philosophy. Stop there. This article goes into Mens' Rights territory, which is inhabited by spineless neckbeards who want feminism for men so they can finally get laid without having to pay in baht.

I think it's worthy considering where Christianity went wrong. I think excessively monotheistic religions suffer from a notion of morality, with God as judge, which becomes a search for he who violates the crowd commandment to be nice to the weak/meek. This is the problem with Christianity, in a nutshell. It is exoteric, preaches a simple dogma, and part of this is the morally judging God. I prefer the Pagan view in every way here: praise to Odysseus, who "found a way" when there was none to be found, and who needed no morality because he always knew what was right according to the aristocratic hierarchy. He did not need simplistic rules for proles.

If Christianity could be restored to its pagan state, without the emosexual faggotry based on prole individualism a.k.a. selfishness, it would be a truly great religion. The Catholic church had glimpses of this, but it too became calcified and entrenched. Hence Martin Luther. The problem with protestantism is that it accelerates the individualism. It, too, needs taming.

I think we should propose a new church that is essentially Pagan but Christian in name, and adopts from Christianity the good things: social conservatism, piety, prayers of solitude, and the Old Testament God.

The rest can be Greco-Roman, Hindu, or elder Eddas.

As far as the mens' rightsers go, they're fools. There are no good options for men until liberalism is crushed.

Quote

'Tradition' as promoted by Evola, Schuon, H. Smith, and Nasr, and a few other luminaries of the 'Tradition' theory, endorse something like esoteric allegorical understanding of fields of knowledge. Do they uncritically assume there was a single historical individual who was the necessary kernel for the eventual Jesus figure? Do they promote mysticism, in their promotion of their 'esoteric knowledge'? If so, what is their conception of mysticism or esotericism -- is it founded on the psychological phenomena of the mystic altered state?

All the no-Jesus researchers agree that there was no Jesus; Jesus was instead a matter of esoteric allegory. But that replaces a misunderstanding by an unknown: what are no-Jesus researchers proposing when they propose that the Jesus figure was a matter of "esoteric allegory"? One simple, materialist answer: "it means annual fertility of crops, which filled the simple-minded ancients with great fear and awe and a deep religious sense of dependency.

An equivalent alternative answer: "it means the sun and astrology/cosmology. The ancients really thought astrology was interesting, and useful for crops, navigation, and prediction."

Those meanings *are* very important, but they omit the most essential spirit of the matter. The answers miss a certain essential quality of what astrology/cosmology and fertility *meant*. Those answers are correct as far as they go, which isn't very far, given that they omit mystic-state, psychological experiencing, which ignited these fields and brought them alive, brought them down to earth below, into the heart of the individual psyche. Theorists of 'Tradition' agree with this view to some extent, which I am trying to identify.

Proponents of "Jesus as visionary plant minister" or "Jesus as visionary plant" say their proposed meaning is a better candidate; that it makes more sense to centralize the amanita cap than the sun as real, ultimate, uber-referent of the Jesus figure. There is some truth to that argument, because the visionary plant is closer to psychological phenomena than the sun is, because the plant produces the phenomena.

However, even more central must be the allegorized psychological phenomena themselves -- the *experience* of the sun-like white-light phenomenon in the psyche; the *experience* of spacetime crucifixion in the psyche. Therefore I agree that the sun doctrine could be a revealed secret, but only weakly, and that visionary plants could be a somewhat more hidden and profound secret, but that the ultimate hidden and revealed, most profound secret must be the experiential intense mystic-state phenomena in the individual psyche.

Perhaps the ultimate unveiled and revealed secret is "the kingship of God", meaning specifically that there's no individual free will in the all-fated cosmos.

You're completely disregarding aspects of Christianity such as monasticism, theosis, knightly orders, etc. I recommend you read some more Chesterton and Belloc, and some more theological works such as the Philokalia and the Summa Theologica, and perhaps look over Dante's Comedy again (stop trying to claim it for something other than Catholicism, Dante would hate you for that).

You can't just equate leftist Christianity with all of Christianity and declare the religion dead. I could utilize that same logic against Hinduism, due to the fact that India is Westernizing at an exponential rate. I'm sure there are Hindu right blogs that are equivalent to this:

I'll admit that Chesterton was from a far better time, but let's see what he has to say on Christianity as it relates to other religions, shall we?

Quote

'...But we must look elsewhere for his real rivals, and the only real rivals of the Catholic theory. They are the heads of great heathen systems; some of them very ancient, some very modern, like Buddha on the one hand or Nietzsche on the other. It is when we see his gigantic figure against this vast and cosmic background, that we realise, first, that he was the only optimist theologian, and second, that Catholicism is the only optimist theology. Something milder and more amiable may be made out of the deliquescence of theology, and the mixture of the creed with everything that contradicts it; but among consistent cosmic creeds, this is the only one that is entirely on the side of Life.

Comparative religion has indeed allowed us to compare religions-- and to contrast them. Fifty years ago, it set out to prove that all religions were much the same; generally proving, alternately, that they were all equally worthy and that they were all equally worthless. Since then this scientific process has suddenly begun to be scientific, and discovered the depths of the chasms as well as the heights of the hills. It is indeed an excellent improvement that sincerely religious people should respect each other. But respect has discovered difference, where contempt knew only indifference. The more we really appreciate the noble revulsion and renunciation of Buddha, the more we see that intellectually it was the converse and almost the contrary of the salvation of the world by Christ. The Christian would escape from the world into the universe: the Buddhist wishes to escape from the universe even more than from the world. One would uncreate himself; the other would return to his Creation: to his Creator. Indeed it was so genuinely the converse of the idea of the Cross as the Tree of Life, that there is some excuse for setting up the two things side by side, as if they were of equal significance. They are in one sense parallel and equal; as a mound and a hollow, as a valley and a hill. There is a sense in which that sublime despair is the only alternative to that divine audacity. It is even true that the truly spiritual and intellectual man sees it as a sort of dilemma; a very hard and terrible choice. There is little else on earth that can compare with these for completeness. And he who will not climb the mountain of Christ does indeed fall into the abyss of Buddha.

The same is true, in a less lucid and dignified fashion, of most other alternatives of heathen humanity; nearly all are sucked back into that whirlpool of recurrence which all the ancients knew. Nearly all return to the one idea of returning. That is what Buddha described so darkly as the Sorrowful Wheel. It is true that the sort of recurrence which Buddha described as the Sorrowful Wheel, poor Nietzsche actually managed to describe as the Joyful Wisdom. I can only say that if bare repetition was his idea of Joyful Wisdom, I should be curious to know what was his idea of Sorrowful Wisdom. But as a fact, in the case of Nietzsche, this did not belong to the moment of his breaking out, but to the moment of his breaking down. It came at the end of his life, when he was near to mental collapse; and it is really quite contrary to his earlier and finer inspirations of wild freedom or fresh and creative innovation. Once at least he had tried to break out; but he also was only broken-- on the wheel.

Alone upon the earth, and lifted and liberated from all the wheels and whirlpools of the earth, stands up the faith of St. Thomas weighted and balanced indeed with more than Oriental metaphysics and more than Pagan pomp and pageantry; but vitally and vividly alone in declaring that life is a living story, with a great beginning and a great close; rooted in the primeval joy of God and finding its fruition in the final happiness of humanity; opening with the colossal chorus in which the sons of God shouted for joy, and ending in that mystical comradeship, shown in a shadowy fashion in those ancient words that move like an archaic dance; "For His delight is with the sons of men." '

A different perspective that I was not privy to prior to reading this, Chesterton criticizes the modern world on the basis that it is constituted by 'wasted virtue', and isolated morals that have devolved in their separation from the main paradigm... this in contrast to Nietzsche, who supposes that the 'paradigm', viz. Christianity, is instead the villain... Anyway, without further ado.... today's quotation!

'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race - because he is so human...

'It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys... Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride.

'But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason... We should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.'

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Proper Catholic society would resemble the society of Middle-Earth. We do not see God as judge purely for the sake of denigrating those who fall outside of the social order, but as a means towards the ascetic end of Christianity. The single most important aspect to the Faith is Christ's incarnation, His unification of God and man in one person. Our goal is, through asceticism, to realize the resemblance of all things to God, and thus the proper method of responding to those things. Sometimes the proper method isn't the one that makes itself readily apparent, sometimes it is, it's all a matter of realizing beauty. That's what Christianity is: the doctrine of beauty, the doctrine of reforming the world into a symphony, or a cathedral, in a somewhat metaphorical manner.

If we're going to be pointing the finger at someone, we're going to have to point it at nigh every single thing about society today. I'll repeat myself, the first step is to synthesize conservative opposition to the modern world, and we Catholics, pagans, Jews, and Muslims need to work together in this. I suppose atheists could join in on the effort, but I have my doubts as to whether they'll understand the conservative conception of authority or not, at least fully.

Remember that my thesis is that Crowdism infests and destroys everything. It has within my sight infested and destroyed: Paganism, national socialism, black metal, drug culture, death metal, local charitable organizations, several businesses, two administrations, etc.

However, we need to make the Christian faith inured to Crowdism so that it does not easily lend itself to being taken over by the Crowd, yet is able to motivate and harness them.

I will always appreciate the standouts like Bonald, Eckhart, Blake, etc. but these are not mainstream Christianity. (It may be that mainstream anything is headed to Douchebag Street by virtue of mainstream, not what it specifically is.)

The point is that Christianity, if it returns to its Pagan roots, will be stronger and might serve as a religion for Europe. It needs to be fully Europeanized, which means removing the anti-Aryan measures such as egalitarianism ("the meek shall inherit the earth") and a monotheism that supports a personal moral relationship to God in which the pitied are to be supported.

Can we do that?

Quote

I'll admit that Chesterton was from a far better time, but let's see what he has to say on Christianity as it relates to other religions, shall we?

Quote

'...But we must look elsewhere for his real rivals, and the only real rivals of the Catholic theory. They are the heads of great heathen systems; some of them very ancient, some very modern, like Buddha on the one hand or Nietzsche on the other. It is when we see his gigantic figure against this vast and cosmic background, that we realise, first, that he was the only optimist theologian, and second, that Catholicism is the only optimist theology. Something milder and more amiable may be made out of the deliquescence of theology, and the mixture of the creed with everything that contradicts it; but among consistent cosmic creeds, this is the only one that is entirely on the side of Life.

Comparative religion has indeed allowed us to compare religions-- and to contrast them. Fifty years ago, it set out to prove that all religions were much the same; generally proving, alternately, that they were all equally worthy and that they were all equally worthless. Since then this scientific process has suddenly begun to be scientific, and discovered the depths of the chasms as well as the heights of the hills. It is indeed an excellent improvement that sincerely religious people should respect each other. But respect has discovered difference, where contempt knew only indifference. The more we really appreciate the noble revulsion and renunciation of Buddha, the more we see that intellectually it was the converse and almost the contrary of the salvation of the world by Christ. The Christian would escape from the world into the universe: the Buddhist wishes to escape from the universe even more than from the world. One would uncreate himself; the other would return to his Creation: to his Creator. Indeed it was so genuinely the converse of the idea of the Cross as the Tree of Life, that there is some excuse for setting up the two things side by side, as if they were of equal significance. They are in one sense parallel and equal; as a mound and a hollow, as a valley and a hill. There is a sense in which that sublime despair is the only alternative to that divine audacity. It is even true that the truly spiritual and intellectual man sees it as a sort of dilemma; a very hard and terrible choice. There is little else on earth that can compare with these for completeness. And he who will not climb the mountain of Christ does indeed fall into the abyss of Buddha.

The same is true, in a less lucid and dignified fashion, of most other alternatives of heathen humanity; nearly all are sucked back into that whirlpool of recurrence which all the ancients knew. Nearly all return to the one idea of returning. That is what Buddha described so darkly as the Sorrowful Wheel. It is true that the sort of recurrence which Buddha described as the Sorrowful Wheel, poor Nietzsche actually managed to describe as the Joyful Wisdom. I can only say that if bare repetition was his idea of Joyful Wisdom, I should be curious to know what was his idea of Sorrowful Wisdom. But as a fact, in the case of Nietzsche, this did not belong to the moment of his breaking out, but to the moment of his breaking down. It came at the end of his life, when he was near to mental collapse; and it is really quite contrary to his earlier and finer inspirations of wild freedom or fresh and creative innovation. Once at least he had tried to break out; but he also was only broken-- on the wheel.

Alone upon the earth, and lifted and liberated from all the wheels and whirlpools of the earth, stands up the faith of St. Thomas weighted and balanced indeed with more than Oriental metaphysics and more than Pagan pomp and pageantry; but vitally and vividly alone in declaring that life is a living story, with a great beginning and a great close; rooted in the primeval joy of God and finding its fruition in the final happiness of humanity; opening with the colossal chorus in which the sons of God shouted for joy, and ending in that mystical comradeship, shown in a shadowy fashion in those ancient words that move like an archaic dance; "For His delight is with the sons of men." '

A different perspective that I was not privy to prior to reading this, Chesterton criticizes the modern world on the basis that it is constituted by 'wasted virtue', and isolated morals that have devolved in their separation from the main paradigm... this in contrast to Nietzsche, who supposes that the 'paradigm', viz. Christianity, is instead the villain... Anyway, without further ado.... today's quotation!

'The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race - because he is so human...

'It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys... Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride.

'But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason... We should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.'

GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Proper Catholic society would resemble the society of Middle-Earth. We do not see God as judge purely for the sake of denigrating those who fall outside of the social order, but as a means towards the ascetic end of Christianity. The single most important aspect to the Faith is Christ's incarnation, His unification of God and man in one person. Our goal is, through asceticism, to realize the resemblance of all things to God, and thus the proper method of responding to those things. Sometimes the proper method isn't the one that makes itself readily apparent, sometimes it is, it's all a matter of realizing beauty. That's what Christianity is: the doctrine of beauty, the doctrine of reforming the world into a symphony, or a cathedral, in a somewhat metaphorical manner.

If we're going to be pointing the finger at someone, we're going to have to point it at nigh every single thing about society today. I'll repeat myself, the first step is to synthesize conservative opposition to the modern world, and we Catholics, pagans, Jews, and Muslims need to work together in this. I suppose atheists could join in on the effort, but I have my doubts as to whether they'll understand the conservative conception of authority or not, at least fully.

You make some good points in the above, but I can't let it stand. I am, after all, Satan.

I like the idea of Middle Earth, but that requires more than religion alone.

I don't like Jesus. He's a whiny hipster. His occasional good points (the parable of the talents) are drowned out in a sea of drama. In fact, what has kept me away from Christianity for most of my life, and made me hate it virulently, is the entire Christ story. It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people. It is sappy, fundamentally Middle Eastern in its "show tunes" quality of saccharine and yet manipulative pandering, and utterly useless but for one thing: day laborer Jesus tells his tormentors that he is not afraid of death, and he will do what is right, "regardless." That alone is beautiful. It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality. As a nihilist, I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light. To me, that is the essential challenge of life.

I do not believe the goal should be God or Christianity. Rather, it should be the divine order of the cosmos, of which Christianity is one interpretation. Any other view is prone to human fallacy. The point should be underscored, however, that a caste system exists and most of us lack validity in any criticism of our religious leaders. We are not all equal. Only the ones at the top really count. And this should be hammered home into their tinny thin little skulls.

I agree we have to point the finger at everything in modern society today. And what is its origin? 1789, and before that, a gradual process of liberalization which Christianity did not stop.

If I were to accept Christianity, it would have to be Pagan, which is to say, adding Satan to the pantheon. Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability. Nothing gold can stay. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Meister Eckhart would turn in his grave if he knew that the same person who mentions him favorably ridicules the Son of God. And he would say: "the more they blaspheme, the more they praise Him."

Learn humility. Even if you are not a Christian: who do you think you are that you could judge a Prophet? Moses, Jesus, Muhammad etc. are all above suspicion for any man who has any reverence for God; they are His messengers and ipso facto outshine us all in perfection.

All true Philosophers and all religious Prophets have proclaimed and defended the idea of the the immortality of the soul, while differing in subtleties. But whether that life then will be pleasant or unpleasant, they proclaim, depends on how we live our life on this earth:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."Matthew 7:21

Quote

It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people.

I think you don't believe it because you lack confidence in God, i.e. that He could do it. However, every religion requires such belief. It is not so difficult if one starts with the premise that God is omnipotent; consequently every wonder is normal--although still awe-inspiring--when one considers who is responsible for it.

Quote

I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light.

This is a false dilemma. Whatever you do that is right, God will not punish you for it in the Hereafter. But the standard is His, and the judgement is His also. Still, He says: My Mercy precedes my Wrath.

Quote

Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability.

You think that Reality were incompatible with Christianity, which again is a false dilemma persisting in your mind. Yes, this world necessarily contains evil; evil is, so to speak, incorporated in it. It is laughable, though, to accuse Christianity of ignoring evil. You might disagree with what is identified as evil, but that is something else entirely. For a Christian, every deed that leads to the death of the soul is fleshly and evil, even if it looks neat from the outside. And every deed that lets it live in God is holy and good, even if it looks ludicrous from the outside. But to understand what exactly leads to the death of the soul, one needs to hear the Word of God and practice It; the outsider who does not practice a religion is like one who is blindfolded, and only with some effort will he be able to remove his blindfold and finally see, cf. Plato's Cave allegory.

The decision to do what is right stands whether the promise of reward in a hereafter exists or not (or even if a hereafter exists). When you believe, you believe, you don't pay lip service or clamor for eternal life and pleasure. If the Lord of the Universe commands, then as an infinitesmally smaller element you obey, for that is the voice of existence itself. The motivation is absolute purpose.

I don't like Jesus. He's a whiny hipster. His occasional good points (the parable of the talents) are drowned out in a sea of drama. In fact, what has kept me away from Christianity for most of my life, and made me hate it virulently, is the entire Christ story. It's a retarded mythos stolen from more intelligent people. It is sappy, fundamentally Middle Eastern in its "show tunes" quality of saccharine and yet manipulative pandering, and utterly useless but for one thing: day laborer Jesus tells his tormentors that he is not afraid of death, and he will do what is right, "regardless." That alone is beautiful. It is made less beautiful by the talk of assured immortality. As a nihilist, I find what is exhilarating is the decision to do what is right no matter what comes, whether eternal non-existence or eternal light. To me, that is the essential challenge of life.

I do not believe the goal should be God or Christianity. Rather, it should be the divine order of the cosmos, of which Christianity is one interpretation. Any other view is prone to human fallacy. The point should be underscored, however, that a caste system exists and most of us lack validity in any criticism of our religious leaders. We are not all equal. Only the ones at the top really count. And this should be hammered home into their tinny thin little skulls.

I agree we have to point the finger at everything in modern society today. And what is its origin? 1789, and before that, a gradual process of liberalization which Christianity did not stop.

If I were to accept Christianity, it would have to be Pagan, which is to say, adding Satan to the pantheon. Evil and good together are necessary. Evil is horrible and stupid, in one view (see the other thread), but it is also what enables variability. Nothing gold can stay. So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Without the resurrection, the sacrifice of the Mass, and thus the entire ritual binding of the Catholic Faith would not be possible. No one is going to feel it necessary to subsume themselves into a traditional, sacred form if they feel they can put them on or take them off like they do with their favorite clothing. Through moral consensus, as is reached in the Faith, we are able to impart character and thus positive achievement upon society. Your criticisms of the resurrection are frankly trite. Firstly, the claim that the meek shall inherit the earth is an exhortation to betterment of oneself. It is the weak who need to be pushed, not the strong. The strong should instead be focused on how to best organize the weak in order to cultivate strength in said weaklings; thus the entire ethos of pity that you denigrate without any serious consideration. Remember, Christ also said 'be perfect as your Father is perfect'. Perfect here means far more than the common perspective of never doing wrong, as Aquinas goes into intense detail to demonstrate. It is also good to remember, as Chesterton said, that one should be the most healthy kind of patriot of the cosmos: that is a patriot who is both unwilling to refuse the cosmos out of selfishness, but is also willing to smash the cosmos to make it better. Of course, better must be understood in a fashion that obviously isn't selfish, thus Chesterton's first point in that twofold understanding of true cosmic patriotism. The understanding of Satan as a source of evil is an infantile, Protestant conception as well. Evil does not have its source in Satan, because evil cannot have any real being if we define evil in a non-contradictory manner. Satan is a symbol for one thing, and one thing only: self-pandering inability, and the denial of the cosmic order that you exhort others to recognize and adapt to. Satan does not cause sin, he only tempts others to it, and even then only very rarely. We also must understand that the proper understanding of sin, the understanding that isn't self-contradictory such as the modern, mainstream Protestant understanding, is what separates the individual from being able to recognize the beauty of particularized things. The resurrection, to an Orthodox Christian such as myself, is not a time to cry over the death of your savior; that's stupid. It's a time of intense glory and revelation, because it represents the uncovering of the doctrine of beauty to the world.

P.S.: Anyone who perceives paradise as a land of eternal happiness has a faulty understanding of paradise.